FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28035

Additional documents

TitleType
28035 Narrative Narrative
28035 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28035 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleGeomorphic Controls on Watershed-Scale Availability of Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat in the Salmon River
Proposal ID28035
OrganizationUniversity of Idaho, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (UI/RMRS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn M. Buffington
Mailing addressDept. of Civil Engineering, 800 Park Blvd., Suite 200 Boise, ID 83712
Phone / email2083644082 / jbuff@uidaho.edu
Manager authorizing this projectLarry Stauffer
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionQuantify geomorphic controls on watershed-scale availability of sediment sizes suitable for chinook spawning.
Target speciesChinook salmon in the Snake River spring/summer ESU
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.856 -116.7926 Salmon River
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 153

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 155 NMFS BPA, working with BOR, the Corps, EPA, and USGS, shall develop a program to 1) identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, survey conditions, describe cause-and- effect relationships, and identify research needs; 2) develop improvement plans for all mainstem reaches; and 3) initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches. Results shall be reported annually.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9902000 Analyze the persistence and spatial dynamics of Snake River chinook salmon Collaborative, information sharing

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Predict grain size and the spatial distribution of suitable spawning habitat as a function of channel hydraulics and boundary shear stress. a. Determine bankfull flow depth and channel slope at watershed scales b. Determine grain sizes suitable for chinook spawning 3 $40,000
2. Modify predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability to account for channel type and consequent hydraulic roughness. a. Predict and field verify channel type, hydraulic roughness, and consequent modification of surface grain size. 3 $30,000
3. Quantify the effects of sediment supply on surface grain size and spawning habitat availability a. Identify sources and magnitudes of sediment supply. b. Model the long-term effects on spawning habitat availability due to sediment input and routing through the channel network. 3 $43,625
4. Validate predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability (see narrative) 3 $20,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1 2003 2004 $80,000
2 2003 2004 $60,000
3 2003 2004 $87,250
4 2003 2004 $40,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$133,625$133,625

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.5 $67,921
Fringe 28.5% salaried; 1% student $14,407
Supplies camping equipment $500
Travel field work; flights to site $5,000
Indirect 48.5% $42,597
Capital $0
NEPA $0
PIT tags # of tags: 0 $0
Other student fees $3,200
$133,625
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$133,625
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$133,625
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
UI 4 months of salary for J. M. Buffington $26,948 in-kind
UI 2 months of salary for computer programer $12,000 in-kind
UI office space, administrative assistance $10,000 in-kind
UI computer hardwater and software for data compilation, word processing, communication with cooperators, and analysis $6,000 in-kind
UI survey, GIS, and field equipment $60,000 in-kind
RMRS office space, adminstrative assistance $9,000 in-kind
RMRS computer hardwater and software for data compilation, GIS, word processing, communication with cooperators, and analysis $10,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. The project proposes to quantify geomorphic controls on the availability of sediment sizes in the Middle Fork Salmon River by assessing validation of a geomorphic model, derived in a western Washington stream setting, that incorporates sediment grain size, relationship to slope and shear stresses. If successful, it might enable the utilization of remote sensing to identify and quantify potential spawning habitat. The researchers are highly competent. However in the minds of reviewers performance of this task would not significantly contribute to the goals of the FWP, especially in the Salmon subbasin where spawning substrate is well identified and clearly not in short supply. The response should clearly demonstrate the benefits of this project to fish, and the Fish and Wildlife Program.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This project should be incorporated into project number 199902000. See the comments for project 199902000.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund as stand alone project. See project 199902000.
Recommendation:
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund as stand alone project. See project 199902000.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. The project proposes to quantify geomorphic controls on the availability of sediment sizes in the Middle Fork Salmon River by assessing validation of a geomorphic model that incorporates sediment grain size, relationship to slope and shear stresses. Scientifically the proposal appears sound and would likely result in the ability to more rapidly assess, by remote sensing, the presence/absence of suitable-sized spawning gravel (in this case for chinook salmon). Project sponsors provided in the response additional discussion of the general applicability of the results, and how the results might be used to address several different management situations. That said, reviewers were not convinced that the approach would have substantial utility in the Columbia system, where there is a relatively high level of awareness of the location of available spawning substrate, to the extent that most individual chinook redds are located by ground or aerial survey. A revised proposal may be appropriate for the systemwide solicitation.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Identify potential spawning habitat for chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River by using models based on gravel size preferred by spawning salmon.

Comments
Model development. If purpose of project is to predict spawning distribution in the MF Salmon, this project is not necessary. We agree with the ISRP's comments that this project would not significantly contribute to the goals of the NWPPC's Fish and Wildlife Program, nor to recovery of Snake River stocks, because spawning substrate in the Salmon subbasin is already well identified and not in short supply. This information is already generally available, so actual benefit of project is questionable. If purpose is to develop a model in the well-censused MF Salmon for use in less-studied subbasins elsewhere, this may be a reasonable proposal, but it will need to include testing in other subbasins. Although it may be of some use in this context, NMFS questions that a model supporting broad-ranging habitat assessments will focus on something as specific as sediment size? What about flow, water depth, water quality, etc?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed and roles and responsibilities among federal agencies for conducting research has been resolved.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
155


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: